Literature DB >> 10487999

Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey.

J G Howie1, D J Heaney, M Maxwell, J J Walker, G K Freeman, H Rai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To measure quality of care at general practice consultations in diverse geographical areas, and to determine the principal correlates associated with enablement as an outcome measure.
DESIGN: Cross sectional multipractice questionnaire based study.
SETTING: Random sample of practices in four participating regions: Lothian, Coventry, Oxfordshire, and west London. PARTICIPANTS: 25 994 adults attending 53 practices over two weeks in March and April 1998. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient enablement, duration of consultation, how well patients know their doctor, and the size of the practice list.
RESULTS: A hierarchy of needs or reasons for consultation was created. Similar overall enablement scores were achieved for most casemix presentations (mean 3.1, 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 3.1). Mean duration of consultation for all patients was 8.0 minutes (8.0 to 8.1); however, duration of consultation increased for patients with psychological problems or where psychological and social problems coexisted (mean 9.1, 9.0 to 9.2). The 2195 patients who spoke languages other than English at home were analysed separately as they had generally higher enablement scores (mean 4.5, 4.3 to 4.7) than those patients who spoke English only despite having shorter consultations (mean 7.1 (6. 9 to 7.3) minutes. At individual consultations, enablement score was most closely correlated with duration of consultation and knowing the doctor well. Individual doctors had a wide range of mean enablement scores (1.1-5.3) and mean durations of consultation (3. 8-14.4 minutes). Doctors' ability to enable was linked to the duration of their consultation and the percentage of their patients who knew them well and was inversely related to the size of their practice. At practice level, mean enablement scores ranged from 2.3 to 4.4, and duration of consultation ranged from 4.9 to 12.2 minutes. Correlations between ranks at practice level were not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: It may be time to reward doctors who have longer consultations, provide greater continuity of care, and both enable more patients and enable patients more.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10487999      PMCID: PMC28226          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.738

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  19 in total

1.  Forty-seven minutes a year for the patient.

Authors:  D P Gray
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Long to short consultation ratio: a proxy measure of quality of care for general practice.

Authors:  J G Howie; A M Porter; D J Heaney; J L Hopton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Performance indicators for general practice.

Authors:  F A Majeed; S Voss
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-07-22

4.  General practitioners' management of acute back pain: a survey of reported practice compared with clinical guidelines.

Authors:  P Little; L Smith; T Cantrell; J Chapman; J Langridge; R Pickering
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-02-24

5.  What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction.

Authors:  R Baker; J Streatfield
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  General practice and continuity of care: organizational aspects.

Authors:  P Hjortdahl
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 2.267

7.  Continuity of care in general practice: effect on patient satisfaction.

Authors:  P Hjortdahl; E Laerum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-05-16

8.  Attitudes to medical care, the organization of work, and stress among general practitioners.

Authors:  J G Howie; J L Hopton; D J Heaney; A M Porter
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Do clinical guidelines introduced with practice based education improve care of asthmatic and diabetic patients? A randomised controlled trial in general practices in east London.

Authors:  G Feder; C Griffiths; C Highton; S Eldridge; M Spence; L Southgate
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-12-02

10.  Measuring general practitioners' attitudes towards medical care.

Authors:  J Cockburn; D Killer; E Campbell; R W Sanson-Fisher
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 2.267

View more
  125 in total

1.  Enhancing human healing.

Authors:  D Reilly
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-20

2.  Hamster health care.

Authors:  I Morrison; R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000 Dec 23-30

3.  Empathy is important for enablement.

Authors:  S W Mercer; G C Watt; D Reilly
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-07

4.  Paternalism or partnership? Patients have grown up-and there's no going back.

Authors:  A Coulter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

5.  Quality at general practice consultations. Time may not lead to quality.

Authors:  D Kremer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-01-29

Review 6.  Revalidation in the United Kingdom: general principles based on experience in general practice.

Authors:  L Southgate; M Pringle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-10-30

Review 7.  Evolving general practice consultation in Britain: issues of length and context.

Authors:  George K Freeman; John P Horder; John G R Howie; A Pali Hungin; Alison P Hill; Nayan C Shah; Andrew Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-13

8.  Clinical governance in Scotland: an educational model.

Authors:  Murray Lough; Diane Kelly; Mike Taylor; David Snadden; Bill Patterson; Iain McNamara; Stuart Murray
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Does continuity in general practice really matter?

Authors:  B Guthrie; S Wyke
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-09-23

10.  The unexpected in primary care: a multicenter study on the emergence of unvoiced patient agenda.

Authors:  Michael Peltenburg; Joachim E Fischer; Ottomar Bahrs; Sandra van Dulmen; Atie van den Brink-Muinen
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.